Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
. there are some people on the left who are angry at obama for the things the state and the things that have to do with the extensions of bush. some don't see it that way. there's a big difference between obama's foreign policy and bush's foreign policy. the civil liberties, obama in the back, now, individual circumstances that are being pointed to, i don't think they have been verified yet. and that is that individuals may do bad things. no human rights organization is saying that that was ended. on the broader foreign policy question, i think it is a huge earth shattering difference that obama is on the side of bottom-up democracy in the middle east in countries and countries, even when the dictators are allies. it is unheard of for an american president to push out an allied was a dictator because the people have turned on that person. >> tell that to ferdinand marcos >> with all due respect, i don't think that is true as well. >> you can jump in anytime. >> i don't think it was that across to turn on a dictator. >> an across-the-board policy of either administration. >> well, you had three yea
to ignore the gaza model was a creation of the palestinian state. it contradicts president obama's reading of our own history. in which african-americans engage in the successful nonviolent struggle for their rights within our own republic. mr. obama has transferred his views to the palestinian struggle. he has done this on several occasions. noting that the palestinians fight for their rights. i find that obama's reading of history, the painful memory of burning cities. it was also at the heart of the african-american struggle for their rights. i grew up in this era. and i think that we will remember if we delve into our memories of the president in 1968, lyndon johnson, could not employ the 82nd airborne in vietnam. though he wanted to. because it was in detroit. palestinians are not fighting for their rights. they have their rights. they are inalienable. even to them, as it says in the declaration of independence. they are inalienable by god. it is an entirely different kind of a struggle than a struggle for rights. the struggle for freedom includes a different kind of tactic. especiall
obama presumably as we elect to, what would be on the agenda? the united states is pushing to have the agenda be focused only on the nuclear issue. that's a mistake because s. can't rightly pointed out, iran is listed here as a state-sponsored terrorism. whatever iran gives up on the nuclear issue, there may be a deal if we can accept iran's right to enrich uranium on its own territory, but the deal is going to be fragile if we continue to press iran on these other issues and there's no accommodation, no strategic agreement, no strategic understanding of the range of issues. so the agenda must be brought. the agenda is address the range of issues that bedeviled the u.s. iranian relationship. with that, there has to be a demonstration of u.s. seriousness. we often fall back on our grievances that concerns are real and imagined we have with the islamic republic in some of them are your bill. i'm not minimizing, boy fall and excuse not to do with the country strategically. as we do with china when we needed to because of us in our interest. here the issue is that it's in our interest
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3